Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.6.2-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first I would like to join in with the praises you have heaped upon Mr Brok and Mr Tsatsos. I think all of us, from our own positions, worked as well as possible with Commissioner Barnier to contribute to this Treaty of Nice.
We need to think in depth about the future – and again I note the same contradictions in passing: those who want a post-Nice review are not necessarily in agreement about its objective. Take, for example, the debate on the constitution, where some want a federal constitution and others want a constitution based on subsidiarity. Before agreement is reached, the European Union must continue to operate. It is a thankless task. It is a painful, difficult task, but it needs to be done. This reform has been in construction for five years. The French Presidency has carried it out without self-satisfaction, but with satisfaction in the work done. Later we will see, together, all together, how to proceed. The milestones are in place, enlargement is possible, the European Parliament will have its place in the debate and in going deeper into the routes and ideas.
I also want to say to Giorgio Napolitano – who has done a lot of work on this issue – that in the end the atmosphere at Nice, the spirit of the Heads of State and Government, and the spirit of the Commission was not defensive of national interests, but seeking a common direction within those national interests. One can understand that Heads of State and Government are preoccupied with the sensitivities of their own public opinions and Parliaments. But I say this sincerely to the European Parliament – we cannot build Europe on the backs of the citizens or behind their backs.
This will be one of my last speeches to you and I would like, in conclusion, to say first what a pleasure it has been to speak here on so many occasions, with the Commission – the President of the Commission – but also to reflect on the role of the European Parliament itself. This will be the only time and I hope you will not mind. When you criticise the Nice European Council and the future Treaty of Nice – the criticism, though varied, is unanimous – be aware that you are also addressing all your governments and all the peoples of Europe they legitimately represent, who have also elected you. I think you should be aware of that because the three institutions, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council, all represent them, each in their own way: let none consider themselves the sole guardian of the higher European interest, while the others are just traders and shopkeepers. I believe deeply in the Community method, and when we say Community method we mean balance between three institutions which need to coexist and get on well together.
That is what I will take away from this debate, this Presidency and this Intergovernmental Conference. The work has been difficult. I am sure it will be useful for the future of Europe. This is ongoing work, but it cannot continue unless we all work together to uphold the European ideal.
It is true – I shall paraphrase Mr Bayrou – that I have been sitting here since this morning; first next to the President of the Republic, then by myself, and the criticism has struck me as moderate and friendly, but criticism all the same. Failure, disarray, skimped treaty, I do not want to summarise everything that has been said. Anyway, I notice that they reflect a contradiction we all live with. Europe is our common heritage, but all of us here belong to different nations and different parties, and the criticism of the Treaty of Nice – criticism of the European Union in general – is unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, utterly contradictory.
Some people want more of this, some people want more of that: some people want more Europe, some people want more social Europe, some people want more liberal Europe, some people want less Europe full stop, and we have had some very fine samples of all that this morning. Some people want more federalism, some people want less and that is where we have to understand that no one can be completely satisfied. I think that deep down it is in the nature of a European compromise not to be satisfying.
I am not saying the Treaty of Nice is exactly what we wanted but, to summarise what I think, it is the best possible treaty given the state of our institutions, the state of our vision of Europe and indeed the state of our ideas, and the state of Europe itself. Like the President of the Republic this morning, I too try to imagine what would happen if we had arrived here without a Treaty of Nice. The consequences of that for Europe would have been totally incalculable. I think it would have complicated enlargement and I do see satisfaction amongst the candidate countries. I think confidence in Europe would have been shaken in economic terms, and operationally we would have lost several years of ground. The French Presidency takes some satisfaction in having carried out its task, which consisted quite simply of achieving closure three and a half years after Amsterdam and five years after we began to think about institutional reform.
I would just like to take up some of the criticisms, or lessons, I have heard here and there. First on the reweighting grid which has shocked François Bayrou, for instance, and bothered Pervenche Berès. We should not forget that this is actually the first time since 1957 that the grid has been genuinely reformed and revised. We failed in Amsterdam, despite excellent work by the Dutch Presidency. Here we succeeded, although it is an extremely sensitive and complex issue. No, we were not playing roulette. I do not think the President of the Republic has a croupier’s temperament. We could not make everyone happy, so we tried not to make everyone unhappy. It was a bit like squaring the circle.
We had a system which was actually simple, but from our point of view – which was not necessarily the Commission’s, and it will perhaps set that out for you – it produced excessive distortions, that is, the principle of the double majority. We have tried to work on a principle of simple reweighting in this squaring of the circle, and I think that on the whole the result is balanced. I would say to Mrs Sjöstedt that I sincerely believe the agreement has not been made on the backs of the ‘small countries’. There is real redistribution in their favour, plus guarantees. For example, in the early days of the European Union, as you know, two so-called ‘big’ countries could achieve a blocking minority, and today it takes three. In a Europe with 27 countries, at least one additional Member State will be needed, so no longer three, but four countries will have to join forces for a blocking minority.
Anyway, before Nice we had the opposite situation where the ‘big countries’ were under-represented and redistribution was needed for them. In addition during the debate we added two so-called ‘safety nets’. A safety net of Member States: any qualified majority must include a majority of the Member States. There was a strong demand for that from those calling themselves ‘small countries’. Then, the 21 least populated countries, representing 30% of the population, will have 50.7% of the votes in the Council. There is also a demographic safety net. I honestly believe we have a balanced system – though I will not claim that it is simple and straightforward.
Lots of speakers have mentioned the post-Nice process. Apparently that is an essential subject for Members of the European Parliament, which is not surprising. We often talked about it here, in October and November. The Presidency has never denied the importance of reflection – as you know – but do recognise that we had to concentrate on the difficult issues, and before we could have post-Nice, we had to have Nice. But I do not think we have ever smothered post-Nice, we have been keen to think about it. Other methods will be needed. Several people have mentioned it here and besides, you will have noticed that the conclusions on the post-Nice process include wide consultation of all sorts of players in society, including Parliament, and concluding with what we hope will be a short IGC.
But, at the same time – and I say this amicably to Elmar Brok – I do not think the Council can meet under the control of the European Parliament. Yes, it can be involved, but I am not sure that more control or presence would facilitate matters. We operate under constitutional systems and the powers must not get confused. It is difficult. I belong to a country that invented separation of powers and I think what we sometimes suffer from is insufficient separation of them. But it is a good system which has stood the test of time."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples